Loading…
AG-2026.03-444·gr-qc·cross-listed: astro-ph.HE
Authors
Abstract
This is the third paper of the set recording the results of the suite of tests of general relativity (GR) performed on the signals from the fourth Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog (GWTC-4.0), where we focus on the remnants of the binary mergers. We examine for the first time 42 events from the first part of the fourth observing run of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA detectors, alongside events from the previous observation runs, restricting our analysis to the confident signals, which were measured in at least two detectors and that have false alarm rates $\le 10^{-3} \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. This paper focuses on seven tests of the coalescence remnants. Three of these are tests of the ringdown and its consistency with the expected quasinormal mode spectrum of a Kerr black hole. Specifically, two tests analyze just the ringdown in the time domain, and the third test analyzes the entire signal in the frequency domain. Four tests allow for the existence of possible echoes arriving after the end of the ringdown, which are not expected in GR. We find overall consistency of the remnants with GR. When combining events by multiplying likelihoods (hierarchically), one analysis finds that the GR prediction lies at the boundary of the $98.6^{+1.4}_{-9.4}\%$ ($99.3^{+0.7}_{-4.5}\%$) credible region, an increase from $93.8^{+6.1}_{-20.0}\%$ ($94.9^{+4.4}_{-18.2}\%$) for GWTC-3.0. Here the ranges of values comes from bootstrapping to account for the finite number of events analyzed and suggest that some of the apparently significant deviation could be attributed to variance due to the finite catalog. Since the significance also decreases to 92.2% (96.2%) when including the more recent very loud event GW250114, there is no strong evidence for a GR deviation. We find no evidence for post-merger echoes in the events that were analyzed. (Abridged)
Submitted
19 March 20261 month ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2603.19021
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.